Society Only By Name- Part Nine: Fabricated Sociology and Philistinism

114) This social disease infects all sects of the pseudo-society, so elaboration on particulars would be rather pointless as the story remains the same. It is the fabricated sociology and philistinism of those who want to change the pseudo-society, only to further line the pockets of the establishment's pockets or replace it with a worse pseudo-society. This is not a panning of the original ideologies, but a panning of what the movements have become in the modern day context, in the hands of these hijackers.

115) The main topic of interest for this section is modern Feminism. Why modern feminism? Simply because it has tried to infiltrate every movement, every ideology, every conversation, regardless of its relevance or not. The hijackers of the movement from the hands of Simone de Beauvoir and into the hands of Germaine Greer, Caitlin Moran and Angela Carter are banshees, screeching buzzwords and ad hominem attacks to any argument.

116) The hijackers, the mock-sociologists, the reactionaries of any society, are trying to seize everything as theirs. It is no longer a matter of social justice, or Left-wing thought, or that certain lives matter more than others, or that one's privilege needs to be "checked", or that we are all equal. It has now become like Orwell's Animal Farm: they are more equal than us. They are the pop-culturalists, and the moral-crusading dregs, forming an alliance.

117) One must step back and take a moment to consider this: it is unspeakable, unfathomable, that any self-respecting man or woman would not catch onto the sheer and unadulterated misogyny and misandry of hijacked, modern feminism. At once, women are informed that they are being controlled and exploited by all men and that they are powerless to overthrow a patriarchy, implying that the female mind and the female heart is made out of paper mache- this, combined with the idea that men are rapists and rape advocates who are the only sex capable of being violent, is why modern feminism is a cruel joke. A progressive ideology? Not in the slightest. Regressive is far more apt a term.

118) Such a sweeping statement would be more likely to inspire laughter than horror, but the above statement is accurate to some extent. Why do feminists still feel the need to deny that females rape men as well, or downplay it significantly because it is "less common"? Why do modern day feminists disagree that the female sex is immune from committing barbaric acts of violence? Have they not read up on Joan of Arc, Queen Mary I, or Dowager Empress Cixi? Women can be violent, as can men. They refuse to know the truth.

119) It is far more egalitarian to admit that we are equal not only in terms of social status, but in the capacity for violence too, than it is to deny that an entire sex cannot possibly be possessed by the shackles of evil. Sure, these feminists present themselves to be the most open-minded among us with their so-called liberalised values, but the opposite occurs when their certain truths turn out to be anything but.

120) Take their favourite checkmate move, the "78 (equivalent to cents or pence) to a (equivalent to a dollar or pound)" card. It's not so much that the author disputes a gender pay gap, but that the pay gap is because of gender. Much of the statistics which were originally collected came from certain occupations, not every single occupation in the pseudo-society. This fact also ignores one thing: choice. Women have a choice as much as men. They might not want to work in certain fields as men, or perhaps don't even care about the issue. Some women do not even want to become feminists.

121) Being critical of a movement is far different from being anti- a movement. The author is incredibly critical of feminism and any reactionary ideology, but refuses to be labelled as being an anti-feminist. The pseudo-society cannot seem to comprehend the difference. Criticising feminism voices a concern or a personal dislike of it- if one is an anti-feminist, they seek to annihilate feminism totally into a million shards. Anti-anything is not desirable. However, the distinction between anti-feminism and scepticism of feminism is so obvious that to ignore it can only be out of choice. These hijackers, these philistines who are only conscious when they decide to be, love controversy too much to not choose to explode when it is not needed.

122) The more juvenile feminists remark that not a lot has changed since the early 20th Century, in regards to the suffragettes and the gaining of the vote, both in 1918 and 1928. How utterly ungrateful! Wages for women have risen since the mid 1970s; women almost always gain custody of children in a divorce- even if the woman in the particular case is in the wrong- and are given shorter sentences for the same crime; the invitation has never been more open for women to engage in any activity in any social situation, especially among dregs, satirists and even among the darlings; and who could ever forget the simple fact that feminists have their right to bemoan as much as anyone else? Emily Davison- someone I would usually never stand up for- did not throw herself in front of the King's horse so that you hijackers would act like spoilt brats.

123) An evil exists, according to the hijackers. An evil manifested as a dystopian government ruled by men, where freedom of speech would not exist for women. Of course, the pseudo-society has a limit to freedom of speech for the general populace, but it hasn't targeted feminists or women in particular.

124) In general, the fabricated sociologists and philistines have a limited view of society. They only see what they don't like and attempt to sum up the entirety of the pseudo-society along those lines. They can quote Karl Marx but have only read two sections of the Communist Manifesto, without understanding Marx's message. They do not dare to read his theses, his studies of German society, nor his extensive works on economics [something which the author has indulged so far in small doses, but is understanding more every time].

125) Moreover, the hijackers are merely asserting their world view with a rather ironic conservatism. Much of their general observations are influenced by dumb-downed Marxism and feminism, with perhaps a convenient alignment to post-colonialism. These particular ideologies have some merit on their own, but in the hand of the hijackers, the self-proclaimed architects of change in the pseudo-society, these ideologies become damaged goods.

126) Communism was destroyed by the Maoists, destroyed by the Bolsheviks, destroyed even further by the Stalinists, and finally by the Che Guevara merchandise wearing philistines. Post-colonialism has become hijacked to justify revenge, holding every citizen in former colonial powerhouses accountable for colonialism, i.e. for things more than a hundred years before they were even born. Hence, the hijackers have presented all white people as racist and deserving racism in return. No-one deserves racism, sexism, or prejudice based on sexuality.

127) The art of these hijackers is not only underwhelming, but appallingly bad. It is riddled with a pretentious hand, an inflammatory notion of truth, and a reactionary and melodramatic execution. The art is at once incredibly self-deprecating whilst intolerant of deprecation in agreement. Like the darling- often these hijackers are darlings, making their rebellion more ironic; they aren't rebelling but fitting in- they can never win. They are "always oppressed", but oppressed only by themselves and on their own terms!

128) There are right-wing hijackers who, instead of seeing everything as oppressive in a bad light, either wish to oppress others for tradition or assert that society has never been better and must maintain a status quo, and does not need any change. These types of hijackers feel that they are stealing society back for the pop-culturalists and the darlings. They are somewhat oppressive, but resemble the legal system in Franz Kafka's The Trial or the authorities in The Castle much better than they resemble George Orwell's government in 1984. The powers that be are incompetent, farcical fools. Hence, right-wingers are incredibly laughable when it comes to analysing society because they see what is already the norm, and conclude that it should stay that way.

129) Therein lies the problem with the pseudo-society: there is no in-between. There exist polar opposites, the radicals and the old farts. There is no evolution, only utter stagnation.

130) The society of neutrality wants to acknowledge these fabricators and kidnappers, but find it hard to accept intellectual dishonesty. As with any idea, their ideas are allowed to exist but in moderation and without blinding convictions. The pseudo-society can only change with pragmatism, not by reactionary revolution. The outcome of that would spark real oppression.